So I've played @ 200 games now and in a few of them I have noticed two people calling a truce early, then basically playing a team game until everyone else is eliminated(standard game). It's never the same people, so I don't think intentional cheating but in a standard game is this poor playstyle or generally looked down on or am I just feeling sour grapes for getting eliminated?

I've employed a similar strategy in flat rate terminator games, where I have an early bonus and another player has an adjoining bonus or we're close to grabbing said bonuses. We decide in chat on a truce along bonus borders and leave 1s on those borders where no one else can break us. Then focus all troops elsewhere, not having to waste troops building next to ea others bonuses. Game usually moves fairly quickly which in flat rate can be a problem w/ stalemates. If this strategy is what you're talking about, then I think it's a wise play by those players involved. I haven't done this yet in a flat rate standard game only terminator but see no reason why this wouldn't work on standard setting as well, provided when it comes down to final 2, the playing ground is somewhat level.

I don't agree w/ you there Hunter. Diplomacy, truces... are part of the game, as long as they are overtly stated in Game Chat. I think you are setting yourself up for disappointment in flat and no spoils games if you don't see this as part of the strategy. I can play a computer in a lot of games, but I enjoy interacting w/ people, trying to understand what other players' goals/motives are, guessing what others' will do if put into certain situations via actions/dialogue... I'd stick to escalating games here if you don't want to deal w/ your opponents' diplomacy. My goal is to win every game I play as I'm sure that is your goal as well. That said, I will use every legal bit of strategy I can to that end.

Breal wrote:I've employed a similar strategy in flat rate terminator games, where I have an early bonus and another player has an adjoining bonus or we're close to grabbing said bonuses. We decide in chat on a truce along bonus borders and leave 1s on those borders where no one else can break us. Then focus all troops elsewhere, not having to waste troops building next to ea others bonuses. Game usually moves fairly quickly which in flat rate can be a problem w/ stalemates. If this strategy is what you're talking about, then I think it's a wise play by those players involved. I haven't done this yet in a flat rate standard game only terminator but see no reason why this wouldn't work on standard setting as well, provided when it comes down to final 2, the playing ground is somewhat level.

I do this too: it's not an alliance, just a non-aggression pact. For what its worth, in my experience those kind of truces rarely last until the two are the last remaining players. One of them will become the strongest and the other will be forced to end the truce so they can assault and survive. Or one of the two will get eliminated. Either way, I've found these truces to be a benefit to the two players but not much of a problem for the other players.

I think that we will be seeing more and more alliances and truces especially in Trench games. Truces don't hold up to well in regular escalating games because those games tend to be over really quick. But in Trench games or no spoils or flat rate where the games tends to last a bit longer truces can be an integral part of the strategy.

Open and over the board Diplomacy has always been a part of this game. But not everyone is diplomatic or has to learn those skills. But the point will always be to make it easier for two players to conquer the game or at least until the truce is broken. Normally it is because of that very reason that one of the two is accelerating in their conquests. The only thing to do is to learn not to be so good or at least appear to be conquering at the same pace as the slower player so that they don't break their truce too early. Lol.

There are times when teaming up can be pretty cheap tactics. For instance, if there are 3 people left in the game, and the 2 strongest on the board team up to wipe out the 3rd. I've had this happen to me several times, and ya, it leaves a sour grapes taste in my mouth...

But, that said, sometimes it is necessary to team up with another weak player to take out the dominant 3rd player - thats just survival, and smart playing.

This is a very gray area, and you have to trust your instincts on what you think is 'honorable' or not. If it feels a bit cheap and dirty, it probably is...

With regards to starting a team at the beginning of the match, and eliminating everyone else... I doubt most people have that in mind at the beginning when it happens. They (and speaking for myself here too...), probably just saw an opportunity to neutralize a potential threat in order to focus on expansion early on.

Those are subjects for "Foeing" I would Foe such players and tag them as cowards. But if the alliance was formed in the beginning of the game then it's just my bad luck to be the last player before the alliance. But if the alliance is formed when there are just the three of us then it's just plain wrong.

There cannot be an alliance 2 vs 1 in a flat rate-no spoils game except from the obvious one that the sole player is too strong and is threatening to win the game. Otherwise, if 2 players ally against the third one to the end, then one of the two is making a terrible mistake and will lose the game. Chances that they will eliminate the third player and somehow have a reasonable 1 vs 1 game with about fair chances is significantly close to zero.

How about a 5-6 player game where 2 people have been eliminated and the rest have teamed up to get rid of the right-now-obvious winner? I'm playing a game where it's basically 3 fairly strong people against me, they've stopped attacking each other, I'm the only one getting attacked. All truces have been declared in chat, and there's so many of them that it's become obvious that they're ganged up on me.

Rapunzel wrote:How about a 5-6 player game where 2 people have been eliminated and the rest have teamed up to get rid of the right-now-obvious winner? I'm playing a game where it's basically 3 fairly strong people against me, they've stopped attacking each other, I'm the only one getting attacked. All truces have been declared in chat, and there's so many of them that it's become obvious that they're ganged up on me.

That's just smart playing by the other guys. Leading a charge against the game leader really blows when you are the leader, but when you're not... it's amazing.

Rapunzel wrote:How about a 5-6 player game where 2 people have been eliminated and the rest have teamed up to get rid of the right-now-obvious winner? I'm playing a game where it's basically 3 fairly strong people against me, they've stopped attacking each other, I'm the only one getting attacked. All truces have been declared in chat, and there's so many of them that it's become obvious that they're ganged up on me.

You can't fight all of them, so you need to undo their coalition. Pull back where ever you can, allowing them to take territory away from you, but only where you allow it, thus preserving your core bonuses. Save your armies for later campaigns. As you lose territory you'll be less intimidating to them and they'll get more suspicious of each other, and sooner or later they'll leave you alone and go back to their own strategies. Then you can resume your campaigns. You can even do this in chat: congratulate them for their heads-up play, and offer territories to a couple of players: use land to buy them off.

It's how the Great Powers used to balance each other, and what worked for them works for us, too.